[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190726161357.696559863@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:54:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mingo@...nel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it, bristot@...hat.com,
balsini@...roid.com, dvyukov@...gle.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
vpillai@...italocean.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 06/13] sched/fair: Export newidle_balance()
For pick_next_task_fair() it is the newidle balance that requires
dropping the rq->lock; provided we do put_prev_task() early, we can
also detect the condition for doing newidle early.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 18 ++++++++----------
kernel/sched/sched.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -3635,8 +3635,6 @@ static inline unsigned long cfs_rq_load_
return cfs_rq->avg.load_avg;
}
-static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf);
-
static inline unsigned long task_util(struct task_struct *p)
{
return READ_ONCE(p->se.avg.util_avg);
@@ -6848,11 +6846,10 @@ done: __maybe_unused;
return p;
idle:
- update_misfit_status(NULL, rq);
- new_tasks = idle_balance(rq, rf);
+ new_tasks = newidle_balance(rq, rf);
/*
- * Because idle_balance() releases (and re-acquires) rq->lock, it is
+ * Because newidle_balance() releases (and re-acquires) rq->lock, it is
* possible for any higher priority task to appear. In that case we
* must re-start the pick_next_entity() loop.
*/
@@ -9016,10 +9013,10 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, st
ld_moved = 0;
/*
- * idle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could repeatedly
- * reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval skyrocketting
- * in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval increase logic
- * to avoid that.
+ * newidle_balance() disregards balance intervals, so we could
+ * repeatedly reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval
+ * skyrocketting in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval
+ * increase logic to avoid that.
*/
if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
goto out;
@@ -9729,7 +9726,7 @@ static inline void nohz_newidle_balance(
* idle_balance is called by schedule() if this_cpu is about to become
* idle. Attempts to pull tasks from other CPUs.
*/
-static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
+int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf)
{
unsigned long next_balance = jiffies + HZ;
int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
@@ -9737,6 +9734,7 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_
int pulled_task = 0;
u64 curr_cost = 0;
+ update_misfit_status(NULL, this_rq);
/*
* We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
* measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
--- a/kernel/sched/sched.h
+++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h
@@ -1449,10 +1449,14 @@ static inline void unregister_sched_doma
}
#endif
+extern int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf);
+
#else
static inline void sched_ttwu_pending(void) { }
+static inline int newidle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, struct rq_flags *rf) { return 0; }
+
#endif /* CONFIG_SMP */
#include "stats.h"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists